Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

From: "Mukesh Gupta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:25:40 -0700

Kalyan,

As the sub-second timers work is picking up, I think it would be better
if the MIB draft supported the sub-second draft.

Adding the support in the MIB later would be much more work than what it
is now.

Please work with Don/Bob and others to figure out what we need in the
MIB draft to support the sub-second draft.

Thanks!

- Mukesh

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:11 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Hi Mukesh and Radia,

    It is your call as to how we should proceed with advInterval for
VRRP over IPv4.

Anyone planning to revive draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 ?

Thanks, 
Kalyan 

________________________________

From: ext [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:58 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Joe,

MIB Drs advised me to check the WG if it wants the MIB to support any
future changes to advInterval for VRRP over IPv4 or

support VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 as it is today.

If the consensus is to support future changes - Then, as you mentioned,
we need to know 

    - Should it support draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 . (which
unified-mib-06  dose not as you mentioned) 

    and/or

    - should it support advInterval similar to VRRPv3 (which it dose
support) 

It would be good to know what the WG thinks will be the most likely
future direction on this 

Thanks, 
Kalyan 

________________________________

From: ext Fioramonti, Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:52 AM
To: Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Kalyan,

If your intention is to support a resurrected version of
draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 (VRRPv4), then I think that we need a
little more.  In that expired draft...

*         Advertisement interval granularity can be seconds,
centiseconds, or milliseconds.

*         Advertisement count is configurable.

*         VR Mode is a new field.

On the other hand, if the intention is to run something more like VRRPv3
over IPv4, then we might be OK.

Thanks,

--Joe.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Hi,

It is my understanding that VRRP unified MIB should take into account
the possibility of supporting

centisecond (sub second) timers for VRRP over IPv4 at a future time. 

I am sending this to get a consensus on this as advised by MIB Drs. 

Thanks, 
Kalyan 

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:07:14 -0400

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:45:55AM -0400, Fioramonti, Joseph wrote:
> Steve's suggestion certainly eliminates the question that I raised, and I
> could live with it if that was the final consensus.  Maybe I'm thinking too
> hard about this, but it does not seem so clean to overload the object like
> that.  How do you feel about adding a units object?

Sorry for chiming in late, but the discussion seems to be ongoing.
I think it's just as easy to pick the most granular time unit that is
likely to be used in the future and stick with that.  In this case, that
would seem to be milliseconds.  A user can readily look at a millisecond
display and derive centiseconds, deciseconds or seconds. 

While it is certainly "nicer" to have an object that reflects the
protocol units, the fact that this is a unified MIB lends some support
to being as inclusive as possible without going through contortions.

-- Jeff